Blogging against Disablism.

Having run out of time to blog against disablism- I recommend this post, which rocks.

Not a real post.

Well, congratulations to me, because the BOOK is now finished and with the publisher, so it will probably come out in the next decade- seriously publishing is SLOOOWWW- unless you're JK Rowling.

But, perhaps, I can now get back to some regularly scheduled posting- but not today. I have no inspiration at all right now and there isn't even anything controversial happening on the news (well yes I could go and read the Daily Mail, but that's just shooting fish in a barrel).

One question for y'all in the know- what 'days' should a good feminist historian blogger remember to celebrate? I recall there is a women in science day, but when is it? I know that March is Women's History month and the 8th International Women's Day, that April is Sexual Violence Awareness month, and that in November/December is 16 days against violence against women- which includes both elimination of violence against women day and Human Rights Day. But, other than that, I am having a blank. I suddenly thought it would be good to commemorate these days with posts, but I never seem to know about them until they happen. Thoughts would be gratefully received.

Patriarchy 101

It occurs to me when reading feminist blogs and comments to blog posts, that there is a lack of understanding about what patriarchy is and means. This is especially obvious in discussions of men's role in feminism, in society and in a feminist society. Many feminists start out with the caveat that they 'like men' or 'don't think all men are oppressors', but few feminist theorists would bother making that point, as 'men are all evil' is not actually what is meant when they refer to patriarchy.

Patriarchy is a social system which includes men and women (as well as people who don't easily define as either). The philosopher Bourdieu argues that power can be direct- such as when you force someone to do something through coercion, or physical violence- or indirect, exercised through culture, social values and institutions, and language. The exercise of power becomes a social system when power moves from being direct to indirect. Patriarchy is not exercised directly by men over women, but indirectly through our involvement in social structures- the way we talk to each other, what we mean when we think 'woman' or 'man' in our heads, our legal system and governance, social customs, traditions and formal institutions like education and religion. Patriarchy is a social system which is built on the concept of gender difference and that gender difference should determine how we think about each other, what our role is in society, and what people get to exercise power. While feminists are usually concerned with patriarchy's impact on gender relationships, it also incorporates other power structures seen in race, class, disability and sexuality politics (and more)- as these power structures all combine and inform each other.

Both men and women live within this system and it is the act of living in it that both creates patriarchy and reinforces it. Men gain from patriarchy, but not exclusively. Some men gain more than others; some women also gain. Furthermore, by the time power is a social system, everybody who is operating within it is participating in its continuation- even if you don't want to be. In this way, women are as responsible for the perpetuation of patriarchy as men. And, while men gain more from patriarchy, and so may be more reluctant to give it up, they are just as much 'victims' of patriarchy as women. They can no more choose to remove themselves from a patriarchal world than women.

When power is direct, it is easier (but not necessarily easy!) to address- you can fight back, you can remove yourself from the realm the individual exercises power in, you can resist. When power is a system, fighting back is a lot more overwhelming. First you have to decide what your goals are, but this means changing the way you understand the world. If you have been brought up your entire life to believe that women are lesser human beings than men, taking the conceptual leap to equality is actually a major breakthrough. Yet, we made that leap and we made tangible goals to make change- increased education, votes for women, access to the professions, equal pay, reproductive rights, rights to exercise our sexuality; rights to our own body. Some of those goals have been met; some we are working towards.

However, we are not complete in our dismantling of patriarchy, because we have not yet been able to conceptualise what a world looks like where gender means something different. We talk about getting rid of gender, but we do not know what to replace it with. We talk about rehabilitating gender (different but equal), but we can't get away from the fact that 'different' is used to deny people rights and opportunities. This problem is because patriarchy is not just about individual action- it is a state of mind. It is a state of mind that we all share and as such we are not encountering new ideas or ways of thinking that might allow us to change our state of mind. We don't even have the terms to start this conversation, as our basic descriptors are 'he' and 'she'. The exercise of power is written into the very structures of our language-the language that we use to think with.

This should not make people despair- the fact is we have made huge conceptual leaps in the past which have allowed us to shake the foundations of patriarchy. But, we have not yet dismantled it. And, this is why language, and how we use it, is important- because it shapes our world. It is also why feminism is not about women hating men; it is about challenging the very way we view the world and asking women and men to join us in that.

******

Illustrated by example: Last week, I pointed out the rather large discrepancy in sentencing between men and women who killed their children. So, how does this happen? Did the judge (male or female) just hate women and want to punish them? This is unlikely. In fact, s/he probably thought s/he was responding to the crime appropriately. But subconsicously, when confronted with a woman who killed her child s/he probably had a thought that went: women = mother> mothers protect, nurture children> this woman killed children =heinous. The judge sentencing the men thought: men + violence = normal masculinity > men killed children = within the boundaries of normal masculinity= standard sentencing. The gender of the criminal had a differential impact on how the same crime was viewed, resulting in different sentencing.

Thus, gender matters, patriarchy exists, women suffer, men suffer= time for change.

Technical Problems.

My laptop has stopped letting me access the internet, because it is evil (or broken, or both). So, I am having to send it to get repaired, hence the silence. I can use hubby's computer, but it just doesn't have the same inspiring vibe as my temperamental baby. Hopefully, I shall write something tomorrow (while at work, heehee).

Housework.

Sometimes, mainly on American blogs, I come across comments of disgust that people pay other people to do their housework. The argument usually goes that people who pay other people to do their housework are exploiting them, regardless of how much they are paid. Apparently, there is no financial remuneration that could compensate somebody for the loss of status brought by cleaning a house. Implicit in this discussion is the sense that doing housework is so demeaning, so awful, that nobody should ask another person to do it for them. Now, why is housework viewed in this way?

First, I think at least part of this argument is driven by a sense of insecurity about placing a numeric value on women’s contribution to the economy. If we can decide on a going rate for house-cleaning, we can calculate how much a woman’s work in the home is worth; as worth decides your social status in a capitalist system, there is a risk that you devalue the social role of housewives. As housewives traditionally took their social status from their husband, there is a risk that women married to high-earning men would be worth less than them and thus risk losing power within their marriage. Implicit in all of this, of course, is the sense that housework isn’t worth very much, and even if it’s not at the bottom of the pile of poorly-paid jobs, it won’t be at the top. This is exasperated by the fact that housework is not seen to be driven by economic factors, so therefore the value of wages would not be driven by economic forces, but by an arbitrary social valuation.

Second, housework is seen as demeaning as it is women’s work. This, of course, is never explicitly said, but why else would such disgust arise at the idea of doing housework. Housework is not that difficult; it’s not that disgusting. I have cleaned houses for money and would much, much prefer that to, say, to having to bathe and dress elderly people, which is considered to a be a respectable (women’s) occupation. It is far less disgusting than working in an abattoir or cleaning out stables. For the queasy stomached like myself, it is far less disgusting that stitching up gushing head wounds or cutting out people’s hearts. The work is not that physically hard and it is only as demeaning as you are treated. I personally had much more patronising and sleazy employers in retail than in house cleaning. Furthermore, while it is not often recognised, housework is an essential part of the economy. If houses weren’t cleaned and laundry left undone, workers would not be able to go to work in clean clothes, or make themselves food; they would eventually be made ill by bacteria, germs and mould; eventually (ok this would take a while but...) houses would decay and fall down, leaving worker’s homeless. Housework is only considered demeaning because it is something that women do.

Third, housework is demeaning because it is associated with the private sphere. The inviolable private home is meant to be a haven from the economic forces of the ‘real world’; a sanctuary from the harsh competition and strife of the capitalist system. Yet, because we value things with an economic value, the private home is seen as worth less than the public sphere. It was meant to be an equal, but different, environment, but inevitably, as capitalism shaped how we viewed the world, it came to hold less social import. To be placed in that environment is to be worth less, whether you are there as a wife or as a worker. Furthermore, the acknowledgement that the private home is also an economic environment undermines the private/public divide. That people could be paid for what goes on inside the home problematises the public/ private distinction that is at the heart of middle class, patriarchal values.

For these reasons, housework is seen as demeaning and paying someone to do your housework is seen as demeaning someone (which is unacceptable for feminists). Paying someone to do your housework is also problematic as it makes very visible the social hierarchies that exist in society and which, especially the privileged, like to pretend we don’t play a part in. Yet, those social distinctions continue to operate in every sphere of life; they are just more obvious when we do it the home and are directly responsible for the payment of wages. Housework is not demeaning, in and of itself. It is seen that way, because we do not value it. This is something we need to respond to as feminists, both because housework is associated with women and tends to overwhelmingly fall to women, and because a critical rethinking of the economic value of housework destabilises the capitalist, patriarchal system.

Day Seven: Sunday.

Yesterday was mostly a lazy day, sleeping late, reading some of my book, and writing a blog entry of length and substance. I spent a couple of hours looking up articles for my research in the afternoon.

So, what’s the conclusion after a week of work? 37.5 hours of productive academic working time, not including time where I was trying to work but actually procrastinating. Hey, that means I worked exactly the amount that academics in the UK are contracted for- how cool. This doesn’t include thinking time, like when I plan articles or to do lists in my head at the gym. I think this was fairly typical for a week where I have marking, doing adminy type stuff with just a bit of writing thrown in. If I am researching in archives or having to write something (rather than tweaking), I would work at least twice this many hours- but then that is not every week. I don't think I ever do much less than this.

Google Searches

Somebody found me looking for 'Margaret Thatcher's Romantic Letters'. Now I don't know what these are, but I think I'd like to read them.

Day Six: Saturday

Morning: I got up late, pottered around the house, went shopping briefly for gift, visited my in-laws.

Afternoon: read some of C.J. Samson’s new book Revelation; checked my emails and spent about half an hour dealing with some work related email stuff (see it's not just me who works on a Saturday). Then read over my article and tweaked it for about two hours.

Evening: Made dinner; watched some Dr Who; while doing some browsing for a job application I am writing I found a really good bibliography and spent 2½ hours cherry-picking the good books/ articles and emailing friends if I found stuff for them- I am not sure if this is work or masochism.

Day Five: Friday.

8-930 Swim
930-10 Tidied house; ate breakfast
10-1130 Procrastinated working, by looking at stuff online, a little blogging; checking emails etc. Documents were duly open on desktop to give the appearance of actual working.
1130-2 Fiddled with book proposal (plus sample chapters); wrote cover letter and finally emailed it- it is now gone with all my hopes and dreams to be ripped to shreds by some publisher
2-530 Worked on article, interspersed with web-browsing. Article is now finished; will send tomorrow, I think. I like to give myself pause to realise the massive hole in the argument
530-645 Half wrote job application; got to the hard part where you have to write the supporting statement and gave up (it’s not due in for a week or so)
645-7 Wrote blog.

Am now going to have some dinner and say howdy to the dude I am married to. Maybe watch a film.

Day Four in the Life.

Thursday. I was tired yesterday, so it wasn’t the most productive of days.

8-10 Gym
10-11 Last bit of housework, breakfast, checked emails.
11-12 Intended to work, opened documents, eyes glazed over, browsed internet, looked for jobs a bit (to make me feel like I was being productive).
12-230 Finally got down to editing the chapters for my book proposal- finished- ready to go in post.
230-5 Intended to work on article, but instead read chapter of colleague’s book. This took longer than it should, probably because I was tired.
530-630 Pilates.
645-8 Dinner and made rhubarb crumble, because rhubarb was on offer at supermarket.
8-900 Wrote up the comments for colleague’s chapter, checked emails.
9 Collapsed in a heap. Had an early night.

WILL BE MORE PRODUCTIVE TODAY.

Day Three in the Life.

Yesterday, I did nothing academic, other than reply to a few emails (half an hours work). What I did do:

8-930 Swim
930-230 Worked my second non-academic job, which supplements my stipend
230-400 Went food shopping
4-614 Cleaned by disgustingly dirty house
630-730 Yogalates
745-830 Dinner and first half of Eufa Cup Final
830-1030 Finished tidying house (with football in background)
1030-11 checked my emails
11 Relaxed.

Today, I am going to do real academic work, I promise (myself).

Day Two in the Life.

I would try to think up something interesting to engage with for your entertainment, but I have end-of-term malaise (boring stuff to do and the promise of free time that needs to be filled with research and writing and requires actual thought- combining to make brain mush). What I got up to today (so far).

8-10 Went to gym (I didn't spend all two hours working out- this includes travel).
10-11.15 had breakfast, did some housework, checked and answered emails.
11.15-12 Commuted to work (read essays).
12-3.45 Marked essays-yeah they’re all done forever (ok until next year or if we have late submissions).
3.45.4.15 Adminy things like pay claims and travel expenses.
4.15-4.30ish Writing my blog and checking out the interwebs.

This evening I have an art class near my work (6-9pm). In between, then and now I plan to read over the chapter I am tweaking and make edits. After 9pm, it’s anybody’s guess, but it will involve a commute home (during which no marking to read- devastating).

A Day in the Life.

I have little of interest to write today, because I have been thinking about my academic writing. So, I thought I would take a leaf out of Dr Crazy’s book at Reassigned Time and blog about my working week. So here is the first day in the week of the life of a post-doc at a British institution. For a bit of context, this is the end of term, so I have the dregs of my marking and the like, but no teaching.

So:

7.50-8.45-Commute (during which) Read colleague’s paper.
8.50-11.45 Invigilate exam (during which) finish reading colleague’s paper; mark last of one set of essays; look over one chapter for book. (It’s a small exam- three students)
11.45-1.00 Check and answer emails; business for society in which I am treasurer; write cover sheets for essay; hand back essays to students; begin writing feedback for colleague.
1.00-230 Lunch with another colleague; discuss upcoming collaboration and catch up.
2.30-3.00 Stand in line to register for graduation!!! (Annoyed about the queue but hey!)
3.00-3.30 Meeting with third colleague about her project (on which I have done a bit of work in the past).
3.30-4.00 Quick look around shops with colleague.
4.00-5.00 Commute- read essays .
5.00-6.00 Check emails- finish and email feedback on colleague’s article; look for jobs.
6.00-9.00 Pilates, dinner, read blogs and write this.

I now plan to answer a few work related emails that I haven’t got to yet and then relax. I should finish that marking, but I can't be bothered.

Procrastination.

When trying to do some work, do NOT google procrastination. Then, do NOT realise what a time suck that was and decide to warn other people by blogging your advice, thus procrastinating some more.

[ETA: (more proscrastination) FYI when you google procrastination, it gives you advice for writers who are avoiding writing. Google can see into my soul.]

Real Life Forum.

This amuses me.

Wearing the Face that She Keeps in a Jar by the Door.

This post is inspired by Dr Crazy’s decision (a long time ago) to change blogs to allow her to recreate ‘herself’ and by a seemingly innocuous remark in the New York Review of Books to the effect that bloggers are obsessed by masked superheroes (via Twisty). Dr Crazy changed blogs as she felt that the persona, or voice, that she had created restricted what she wished to say and the way in which she spoke. Similarly, the reviewer at NYRB argued that bloggers loved masked superheroes as they could identify with the dual identity of the masked superhero (or in this case anonymous blogger) and the real life person.

As soon as you make the decision to blog, the issue of voice becomes very apparent. Unlike writing for academia, where you are expected to adopt a neutral, ‘rational’ voice, and writing literature, where the voice you create has limited time span or word count, a blogging persona is meant to convey something of you and often with an expectation that the persona will last the test of time. Yet, ‘you’ are not a static structure, but change in different contexts and over time. My physical voice has many tones, yet there is often an expectation that the blog persona will have a single style.

My avatar, Feminist Avatar, in many ways reflects the questions I have about voice. I couldn’t think of a pseudonym that defined me or accurately represented me. An avatar is an empty shell waiting to be filled up with content. I chose Feminist Avatar as the only thing I definitely knew I wanted to convey was my feminism. Yet, as feminism has multiple meanings, this still allowed flexibility of voice. I wanted to give my name meaning through my writing, rather than through a name.

Yet, the more I write, the less distinctive my voice becomes, and yet at the same time, I feel restricted by previous styles, so that I could not now dramatically change direction. Like a masked superhero, I increasingly buy into the myth of my identity and so become more rigid in behaviour, yet in this case it is a myth that I have created. It’s an interesting journey. It will be fun to see where it goes.